09 Jun '11 13:04>1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Maybe with respect to short-term spending, but not with respect to paying off the deficit.
The first element makes sense. The second doesn't.
Originally posted by wittywonkaAbsolutely. Every state has one. Why not the country?
Since we're talking long-term solutions, why not also consider a balanced budget
amendment? Of course, there could be provisions for exceptions under certain
circumstances, but I don't think the idea itself is radical.
Originally posted by wittywonkaRaising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Maybe with respect to short-term spending, but not with respect to paying off the deficit.
Originally posted by spruce112358Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
Originally posted by spruce112358Will Disco come back!?
Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
Originally posted by no1marauder20% is a reasonable tax rate. 15% is better. Unearned income is like any income and should be taxed accordingly.
Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
Originally posted by spruce112358Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.
20% is a reasonable tax rate. 15% is better. Unearned income is like any income and should be taxed accordingly.
Originally posted by no1marauderRe: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.
Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.
I thought you were opposed to a tax on dividend income.
Originally posted by sh76SH, you've been pretty level headed over the years at rhp.
Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.
Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
If up, great.
If not, try again.
Do this twice a month until you pass something.
Originally posted by spruce112358The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.
Re: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.
If we forced companies to pay salaries with after tax money (and still taxed the employees who received that salary) that would be double-taxation. That's what we do with dividends.
Doing this would encourage d ...[text shortened]... of purchasing a government annuity (e.g. social security). We should definitely encourage that.
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsolutely not. Double taxation of dividends means companies must try to deliver returns to their investors through higher stock prices instead of profit-sharing. It is a case of government regulation interfering in the normal working of the economy again.
The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.